>Kyrie and Hayward. And if they got further without those two
>than with those two and the two younger guys played better,
>where does the blame lie?

Small sample size, different opponents, etc. Brown also played better *all season* last year, including with Kyrie, so there's pretty clearly not a linear relationship between Kyrie on the floor and Brown playing worse. Also no Marcus Smart this offseason, and while I don't love him, he'd have obviously made a big difference defensively (though he still wouldn't have solved the main problem, which is that Boston has no one who can guard Giannis).

Also, I don't think anyone's saying Kyrie *shouldn't* be taking heat. He's shot the ball badly. But I think there's a world of difference between "does he deserve blame?" and "can he be the guy?" The answer to both questions can be yes.

>And production is a matter of timing/circumstance/experience.
>Talent is a matter of ability and I still think Boston is way
>more talented top to bottom.

Sure. And as we've seen in every sport ever, younger and more "talented" players aren't always "better" players, especially in elimination tournaments. You keep going back to talent when no one is disputing Boston's talent. The dispute is whether these guys are better today as players than the players the Bucks have. I don't think they are. I'd take the Celtics' supporting cast next year, as they have the higher ceiling... but their ceiling doesn't matter today.

>We can't just chalk this up as
>Mil SHOULD have beaten Boston when almost everyone shoed the
>C's into a finals birth

you mean... last offseason? Before we saw Hayward was a shell of himself? Before we saw Brown's numbers regress to the mean? Before we discovered Tatum wasn't going to have the stratospheric jump that people expected? Before we knew Smart wouldn't play in the playoffs? Sure, that was then. Now, in reality, Milwaukee was a huge favorite for a reason.

>and still thought it might be possible
>after round 1.

Sure, I mean, anything's possible. But a -330 favorite in Vegas, without looking, was probably the widest odds of any in this round, East or West. So Milwaukee was a huge favorite. For a reason.

>They underachieved. Mil overachieved.

No one is disputing this either.

>It's also funny that Tatum consistently produced in the
>playoffs in the ECF when needed but all of a sudden this
>season he's an afterthought. Might have something with his
>usage and a lack of similar opportunity.

Yeah, I mean, he scored 18 PPG in the ECF and he's scoring 15 and a half PPG this playoffs so far. He had two shitty games out of eight that tanked his average this year-- that happens, and it's skewed what people have thought of his playoff performance for the most part imo. His usage isn't insanely lower-- he's averaging under 1 fewer shot per game in this playoffs than he did in the last playoffs. Take away those two duds, and his numbers are the same if not better than last year's playoffs. I know you *can't* just cherry-pick out his worst outings... but that's kind of the point with Tatum. People have been frustrated all year with him "taking games off," more or less. He acknowledged as much after Game 2-- he can't be so passive.

He's far from the main problem, but he's part of the aforementioned problem: if Kyrie isn't making shots, the team doesn't have a consistent second option that can help make up for a bad performance from your star.

You can have the last word, because I don't really feel like going back and forth any longer, lol. There's blame to go around. Kyrie's shooting has been bad. Hayward is being used too much for someone who isn't himself. Brown's shooting regressed as many of us suspected it would, and he has a team-worst assist rate and team-worst On/Off numbers. Replacing Smart with Hayward *really* hurts your team defense, especially against a team like the Bucks. I think Stevens's plan to push tempo and fire so many 3s is tailor made to backfire against a team like Milwaukee unless you're absolutely wet from distance. Also, on top of everything else, the Bucks are very very fucking good, and I think you're underselling how good they've been all year and how well they continue to play.

If you wanna take this series and use it to say Ky can't be The Guy, or Ky needs to be Second Banana, or Ky makes players worse, or Rozier would be better than Ky for the Celtics (lol), or whatever the other things I hear people say are, then by all means. I'm just hopeful Ky can go out with a bang in Game 5, put on a real show, and then I'll spend all summer praying to God that he doesn't go to the Knicks.